(Reprinted from my previous blog with permission from the author, me.)
March, 2008
Americans, at best, probably can reach a consensus that the Europeans are our distant cousins and then can be surprised at how much of a divide there is between the two sides of the Atlantic. To me the largest component of these differences stem from our disparate responses to the World Wars.
Twice in the 20th century Europe basically tried to commit suicide. Both of the wars did not go according to plan and both of them drew in the United States. At the end of WWII the Europeans could look back on the last forty years (or even the last 150) and say in a near unison chorus that "War doesn't work."
The response to this revelation was to create the supranational agencies that have been instrumental in keeping peace to this day. The ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) attempted to remove the possibility of a third major war between France and Germany by agreeing to share the energy and building resources that they had been fighting over. It was proposed in 1950 and signed in 1951. In one year more had been accomplished to satisfy both nation's economic and security needs than in 12 years of 20th century warfare.
A turning point had been reached. The Europeans, out of the mutual revulsion to the extremes of the wars, became dedicated to diplomacy as a means to answer all their problems. And it worked. A continent that had almost joyfully been at war with itself since the Roman Empire's collapse has entered a period of peace that will last into the indefinite future... as long as it's up to them.
The experience of the sixty years has shown the Europeans what can be accomplished through diplomacy. Compare that to six centuries of ineffectual warfare and Europe's near grating dedication to being a pacifist community makes perfect sense.
The American response to WWII is very different. The US had little desire to become involved in the wider world until WWII. It was quintessentially isolationist and when one compares its economic potential to its actual armed forces it had the most unrealized amount of military force in history. When Americans think of the World Wars we see our country being dragged into a conflict that we had no hand in starting and little to gain by an all out effort to end. The second thought is of a near religious crusade to completely destroy the perceived aggressors. The second time America got involved it had the benefit of moral clarity. No one could argue that our opponents were acting in self defense. We didn't want to be involved but after we were we unleashed a complete and total and final judgment upon our enemies. (Note: I'm not mentioning the massive Soviet contribution because I'm writing about perception rather than reality.)
At the end of the war the United States found itself convinced that its continued participation was necessary in Europe to prevent a third war or a devastated continent's capitulation to concentrated and determined Soviet aggression. America found itself in the one position it had never desired to be in: a superpower that could never disentangle itself from the world. Through a combination of threats, proxy wars, bluster, and mutually assured destruction the Americans contained the perceived threat from a monolithic communist revolution, something that may never have actually threatened America itself. America paid for European reconstruction out of generosity and based massive armies on the continent to ensure the West's security. By the end of WWII and the Cold War America had risen to be more powerful than any nation had been since the Roman Empire. We learned the opposite lesson from the Europeans: War CAN work. (The Vietnam war, while traumatic, only reversed this belief for a short period of time.)
This nearly brings us to the present day. Despite having more commonalities than any other two distant parts of the world the Europeans and Americans can have profound disagreements on international politics. They can call Americans warmongers and we can call Europeans naive cowards and everyone can feel perfectly comfortable within those judgments.
The different responses to Iraq war followed these beliefs perfectly.
The Europeans can sigh at American willingness to believe that violence, applied correctly, can solve any problem. It's because of they're long history of violence failing to solve very much that the Europeans believe this. Americans can say, on the other hand, "Violence, correctly applied, has a good track record in our history." Both perceptions are correct under the different histories.
The legacy of the 2nd Gulf War, and I don't think the final chapter is by any means known, will be which belief about war is regarded as correct by the succeeding generation of Europeans and most Americans. The Europeans could almost be forgiven for hoping that the Americans withdraw less than victoriously because that would mean America's arguments in favor of the effectiveness of violence had been given a serious setback. If the American goals are met before a general withdrawal it will mean that violence worked... and that will likely beget more violence. That being said, even in the face of a catastrophic American withdrawal there will still be a large number of Americans who, instead of saying that violence doesn't work, will believe that the Bush administration's ham handedness in prosecuting the war is the primary reason for failure. (This administration has had so many major screw ups in Iraq that this will be a difficult argument to silence.)
I dislike dumbing down a current conflict, wherein my own countrymen are still dying, to a dry cultural discussion. Regardless, this how I see it.
This entry is long enough as it is but I should mention an excellent article I just read about Europe's choosing to be irrelevant in global politics. The gist of it is that Europe is enjoying the good life right now and enjoying it on the cheap. It can't be invaded but neither can it be asked to shoulder the burdens that the Anglo-American alliance does. Even though the combined economies of the EU countries is slightly larger than the United States economy their lack of political unity or will means that the massive economic strength will not translate into political or military muscle for the foreseeable future. After all, why would they want to?
With no direct military threat the only danger to Europe is an upset the international trade that it prospers from. The same trading forces that propel their living standards upwards do the same for the Americans, who can be counted on to use their military to enforce freedom of the seas. If the Iranians mine the Straights of Hormuz for short term political gain who will go to bat to remove the mines and enforce free passage? The American (and possibly British) navy. Why should Denmark be concerned? American participation is a given. The US has even gone so far to suggest placing anti-missile systems on European soil to protect against a Iranian threat to its allies. This is the single greatest current resentment that Americans have towards the Europeans: we seem more interested in their security than they do.
The European answer is that American bellicosity is just as likely to help create an apocalyptic threat as to deter it. Who's right? The Europeans can argue that they were more right about Iraq but Americans can cynically make all sorts of points about the world still be here thanks to American brinksmanship and hardheadedness. (That's actually one word!)
I don't know who will win in the long term argument between the Americans and our cousins. I know that I hope the Europeans are right. I'd prefer to live in a world that is like Europe as I've described it here. A community that has found reasonable ways to accommodate different country's desires and created a political framework to ensure peace for the foreseeable future. But I'm not that optimistic. I think there are plainly evil people in the world who can not be accommodated and the best answer to them is our ability to deter them or neutralize them if necessary. I don't like having to believe that and perhaps that makes me a part of the world's problems. Maybe I am as much to blame as aggressors throughout the centuries. But I doubt it.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
With all due respect, Admiral...
Retired Admiral James Lyons (USN) recently posted his thoughts on Taiwan in the Washington Times. He expressed a much fairer understanding of Taiwan's position vis a vis the United States than the Cold Warriors who educated him have in the past. For nearly forty years after World War II the Chinese derisively and the Americans delightedly referred to Taiwan as America's "Unsinkable Battleship." Lyons shows himself to be a far more enlightened man and calls the island America's "Strategic Aircraft Carrier in Reserve."
Hmmmmmmmmm.
What is wrong this picture? We decry the notion of communists dominating Taiwan because it would destroy Taiwanese democracy but by implying that the United States is the occupying power of Taiwan he is admitting that the Taiwanese, who can't vote in American elections, are not living in a real democracy at all. To be fair the Admiral seems to have no interest in democracy and talks about Taiwan in a stricly military/geographic context. He is right in saying that Taiwan's accession to the PRC would give China de facto control over the South China Sea but aren't we, as a country, beginning to acknowledge that we should at least pretend to care about the citizens of such small countries? Taiwan is not simply a bishop in our game of chess with the Chinese.
My last entry was criticizing Jian Junbo's article about the House of Representatives attempting to manipulate Taiwanese politics and with articles like this floating around I can understand his confusion.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
What is wrong this picture? We decry the notion of communists dominating Taiwan because it would destroy Taiwanese democracy but by implying that the United States is the occupying power of Taiwan he is admitting that the Taiwanese, who can't vote in American elections, are not living in a real democracy at all. To be fair the Admiral seems to have no interest in democracy and talks about Taiwan in a stricly military/geographic context. He is right in saying that Taiwan's accession to the PRC would give China de facto control over the South China Sea but aren't we, as a country, beginning to acknowledge that we should at least pretend to care about the citizens of such small countries? Taiwan is not simply a bishop in our game of chess with the Chinese.
My last entry was criticizing Jian Junbo's article about the House of Representatives attempting to manipulate Taiwanese politics and with articles like this floating around I can understand his confusion.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Clearly went to a state school...
During my time in China I was frequently asked about the status of Taiwan. It's a raw nerve to many Chinese people and I can understand why: the Communist Party has based a large part of its legitimacy on a promise to eventually reunify the two China's and finally bring the civil war, now in its seventh decade, to a close. About a week ago the House of Representatives passed a resolution marking the 30th year of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA.) In this act the United States promises to help Taiwan defend itself against Mainland aggression by selling defensive weapons and nebulously promising to come to the aid of the island. The US recently made good on this promise by selling Taiwan $6.5 billion worth of technologically advanced weaponry. The Chinese, predictably, decried this as a violation of their sovereignty and lower level ties between the two great powers are just now approaching pre-weapons sales levels of connectivity.
The House of Representatives' recent action is a pointed reminder to the other branches of government and to Mainland China itself that at least one major organ of the government considers Taiwan's status as an Asian democracy inviolable. This moment of support for a belagoured Democracy, where people have virtually the same rights as an American citizen, should be viewed in the same way as every other action of the House: an attempt to assert their independence from the other branches of government and to look good for their reelection campaigns next year (no one loses votes for supporting a foreign democracy). However, many in China can't possibly see this ceremonial measure as anything but the rattling of a bloody saber.
Dr. Jian Junbo of Fudan University in Shanghai (a very prestigious institution for those not in the know) accuses the House of attempting to ensure instability in the straight, interfering with the government of China, and, most puzzlingly, interfering with the government of Taiwan.
This article is so filled with jargon level propagandist platitudes I hardly know where to begin!
A large part of Dr. Junbo's arguments are predicated upon the House of Representatives being a coordinated, corrupt, and unified body bent on extending American domination into the Chinese world.
"The House's adoption of the TRA resolution is a blatant signal that the US is dissatisfied with warming China-Taiwan ties."
If only we were that organized!!! Dr. Junbo's assessment of American government can't help but be affected by the functioning of the Chinese government whose Central Committee members are not elected by the people they govern and exist to rubber stamp the decisions of the more senior government institutions. Unfortunately, the American House is an uncoordinated mishmash of personalities that managed to talk their way into government for two years. To accuse them of conspiring to extend American domination into Chinese territory is like accusing a group of chimps of coordinated poo throwing campaigns against the neighboring tiger cages.
He goes on to comment:
"If we link this resolution to the recent Pentagon report on Chinese military power - which stated that the PRC is militarily superior to Taiwan - maybe it's easy to conclude that the US wants to see some instability on the Taiwan Strait."
Let's put some emphasis on maybe! Why should we link those? Simply because two disparate parts of the American government say something in the same month about related topics does not a conspiracy make! The dates are even complete coincidences- the Dept. of Defense publishes a report like this every year and this happens to be the 30th anniversary of the TRA.
The good professor wrote this, not in response to any real information, but because of a knee jerk response built into Chinese PhD's to view foreigner's discussions of Chinese issues as an automatic violation of Chinese sovereignty. I'm unsure how someone could view the H.ofR. voicing support for Taiwan as unfair to the Taiwanese but Junbo has no qualms:
"...the US's commemoration of the act is not constructive for cross-strait peace and stability. It could provoke internal confrontation between the KMT and the DPP, and undermine the growing trust between Beijing and Taipei."
and
"The resolution may also pressure Taiwan's ruling party to take more radical steps to seek "greater international space", regardless of Beijing's stance."
Apparently reminding Taiwan that it has friends is a violation of its sovereignty and may propel the weak minded citizens into internal conflict. Even the very voicing of concern may somehow force the KMT to seek "greater international space!" Junbo seems concerned that the average Taiwanese is so fickle and so easily distracted that a few ceremonial words from part of the American government will push the island into civil war. Sorry professor, the CCP has attempted to make its own masses that easily manipulated but its long term success in China is dubious and it never had a chance in free Taiwan.
Although this last part isn't a major issue in the article it bares pointing out:
"China has been trying to promote strait relations by winning the "hearts and minds" of Taiwanese people-"
What is he talking about? Was bracketing the island with missiles during election season an attempt win hearts and minds? Is forcing dozens of African countries to not even have relations with Taiwan an attempt to win hearts and minds? Is blocking Taiwan's attempts at free trade agreements with other countries meant to make them come happily back to the fold? Is threatening annihilation if they declare independence part of the charm offensive? Was refusing to allow third parties to offer aid to Taiwan after the 1999 Jiji earthquake because they didn't ask Beijing's permission first a bouquet of diplomatic flowers?
*Breathe*
In the end the status of Taiwan is a matter for the people of Taiwan to decide. So long as the resolution is handled peacefully the United States will accept it. However, giving Taiwan respect and the weapons to defend itself makes it a more confident bargaining partner and assures the people that their future is in their own hands. If Taiwan is ever to rejoin China in some form, it will be best accomplished by a confident and self assured Taiwan which makes its own decisions. But, alas, the PRC doesn't have or even understand democracy so neither can it understand the willpower of the free Taiwanese people.
The House of Representatives' recent action is a pointed reminder to the other branches of government and to Mainland China itself that at least one major organ of the government considers Taiwan's status as an Asian democracy inviolable. This moment of support for a belagoured Democracy, where people have virtually the same rights as an American citizen, should be viewed in the same way as every other action of the House: an attempt to assert their independence from the other branches of government and to look good for their reelection campaigns next year (no one loses votes for supporting a foreign democracy). However, many in China can't possibly see this ceremonial measure as anything but the rattling of a bloody saber.
Dr. Jian Junbo of Fudan University in Shanghai (a very prestigious institution for those not in the know) accuses the House of attempting to ensure instability in the straight, interfering with the government of China, and, most puzzlingly, interfering with the government of Taiwan.
This article is so filled with jargon level propagandist platitudes I hardly know where to begin!
A large part of Dr. Junbo's arguments are predicated upon the House of Representatives being a coordinated, corrupt, and unified body bent on extending American domination into the Chinese world.
"The House's adoption of the TRA resolution is a blatant signal that the US is dissatisfied with warming China-Taiwan ties."
If only we were that organized!!! Dr. Junbo's assessment of American government can't help but be affected by the functioning of the Chinese government whose Central Committee members are not elected by the people they govern and exist to rubber stamp the decisions of the more senior government institutions. Unfortunately, the American House is an uncoordinated mishmash of personalities that managed to talk their way into government for two years. To accuse them of conspiring to extend American domination into Chinese territory is like accusing a group of chimps of coordinated poo throwing campaigns against the neighboring tiger cages.
He goes on to comment:
"If we link this resolution to the recent Pentagon report on Chinese military power - which stated that the PRC is militarily superior to Taiwan - maybe it's easy to conclude that the US wants to see some instability on the Taiwan Strait."
Let's put some emphasis on maybe! Why should we link those? Simply because two disparate parts of the American government say something in the same month about related topics does not a conspiracy make! The dates are even complete coincidences- the Dept. of Defense publishes a report like this every year and this happens to be the 30th anniversary of the TRA.
The good professor wrote this, not in response to any real information, but because of a knee jerk response built into Chinese PhD's to view foreigner's discussions of Chinese issues as an automatic violation of Chinese sovereignty. I'm unsure how someone could view the H.ofR. voicing support for Taiwan as unfair to the Taiwanese but Junbo has no qualms:
"...the US's commemoration of the act is not constructive for cross-strait peace and stability. It could provoke internal confrontation between the KMT and the DPP, and undermine the growing trust between Beijing and Taipei."
and
"The resolution may also pressure Taiwan's ruling party to take more radical steps to seek "greater international space", regardless of Beijing's stance."
Apparently reminding Taiwan that it has friends is a violation of its sovereignty and may propel the weak minded citizens into internal conflict. Even the very voicing of concern may somehow force the KMT to seek "greater international space!" Junbo seems concerned that the average Taiwanese is so fickle and so easily distracted that a few ceremonial words from part of the American government will push the island into civil war. Sorry professor, the CCP has attempted to make its own masses that easily manipulated but its long term success in China is dubious and it never had a chance in free Taiwan.
Although this last part isn't a major issue in the article it bares pointing out:
"China has been trying to promote strait relations by winning the "hearts and minds" of Taiwanese people-"
What is he talking about? Was bracketing the island with missiles during election season an attempt win hearts and minds? Is forcing dozens of African countries to not even have relations with Taiwan an attempt to win hearts and minds? Is blocking Taiwan's attempts at free trade agreements with other countries meant to make them come happily back to the fold? Is threatening annihilation if they declare independence part of the charm offensive? Was refusing to allow third parties to offer aid to Taiwan after the 1999 Jiji earthquake because they didn't ask Beijing's permission first a bouquet of diplomatic flowers?
*Breathe*
In the end the status of Taiwan is a matter for the people of Taiwan to decide. So long as the resolution is handled peacefully the United States will accept it. However, giving Taiwan respect and the weapons to defend itself makes it a more confident bargaining partner and assures the people that their future is in their own hands. If Taiwan is ever to rejoin China in some form, it will be best accomplished by a confident and self assured Taiwan which makes its own decisions. But, alas, the PRC doesn't have or even understand democracy so neither can it understand the willpower of the free Taiwanese people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)